Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 24

US debt to China

China currently holds about 26% of the United States public debt.

Does China own enough of the US debt that if it decided to make the US repay it, the US would collapse and/or be owned by China? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "decided to make the US repay" ? If you mean that they would stop loaning the US money and thus cease to be a creditor after the US paid off it's current debts to China, then the US would have two options:

1) Find other places to borrow money.

2) Learn to live within it's means.

Some combo of those two is most likely. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. The debt is mainly in the form of bonds, which come due at a fixed date. All China could do would be to stop financing the running deficit by buying more bonds each year -- that would cause a lot of trouble but wouldn't be likely to cause a collapse, at least not in any sort of direct way. And the problems that resulted would be at least as severe for China as for the US, because they would no longer be able to support their economy by selling stuff to us. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the US obligations to China come due over time, and they can not demand, for example, that the Treasury pay 10 year notes before they have matured. Almost all Treasury securities are currently auctioning at a negative real interest rate, but that has not been the case for almost all of the previous decades. So if China were to arrange the early payment of the obligations they hold, they would be rolled over and that would substantially reduce the financial burden on the US. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

China has to do something with the proceeds from its current account surplus. Up to now, China has put much of those proceeds into US Treasury bills. As others have said, China cannot demand repayment of those bonds before they are due. China could stop buying more bonds, but then it would have to figure out what to do with its surplus. If China converted its surplus dollars into its own or some other currency, its target currency would rise against the dollar. The volume of the surplus is so great that any external target currency (say, the euro or the Australian dollar) would rise dramatically against the US dollar, jeopardizing exports from the holder of the target currency. The owner of the target currency would practically be forced to implement capital controls to stop Chinese purchases. Ultimately, the Chinese would have no other option than to convert the dollars into their own currency, driving it up relative to other currencies, until Chinese exports lost their price competitiveness and the Chinese current account surplus disappeared. On the United States, the effect of a Chinese rejection of its debt would inevitably be to drive down the US dollar. Internally, the US government would not necessarily have any difficulty financing its debt, since the Federal Reserve System has a theoretically unlimited ability to create money to purchase Treasury bills through open market operations. Externally, however, the resulting drop in the dollar would make imports (including oil) much more expensive. This would force US consumers to cut their consumption of imported products, including gasoline, and would have a negative impact on the large part of the US economy focused on consumer spending. This would almost certainly send the US economy back into technical recession. Meanwhile, however, the drop in the US dollar would make US exports much more competitive, boosting economic sectors (including many areas of manufacturing) that are export-oriented or that would gain from the effective removal of Chinese competition. Growth in export-oriented or import-replacing sectors could eventually counterbalance contraction in the consumer sectors such that the US economy, with a devalued dollar, could eliminate its current account deficit and its need for external financing. Marco polo (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is one more thing the Chinese could do. They could attempt to sell the treasury bills they are currently holding on the secondary market -- i.e., sell them to other investors. This would complicate the US government's attempt to borrow more money because the government would have to compete with the Chinese government to find buyers for treasury bonds. Of course, the Fed could buy up the bonds, but that would create inflation complications. Having said this, the Chinese couldn't do this at zero cost. They would take a serious financial loss if they attempted to flood the secondary market with t-bills. Wikiant (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very hard to imagine the Chinese doing what Wikiant has described, even as an act of war. Selling their holdings would force the Fed to intervene and would cause the value of the US dollar to crash or even collapse. As a result, the Chinese would take a huge loss. What they would probably like to do, ultimately, is to convert their US holdings into tangible assets of real value, such as agricultural land, mines, and oil fields. To do that, they need to cash out of their holdings gradually, so that they can still get some real value for the dollars they receive. Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If theoretically the US were at war with China, would they be able to select Chinese bonds and refuse to honor those specific bonds while paying out on all the others without being declared in default? Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. They would simply make it illegal to conduct any financial transactions with China. But if we were in a war with China, this would be the least of our worries. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In full-scale nuclear war, yes, but how about a limited scope war or perhaps a proxy war over the fate of some place like Burma ? StuRat (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the standard procedure in such circumstances to freeze the enemy country's assets and pay any debts due to it into escrow until the freeze is lifted? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

War is the least of our worries. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's always a bright side .... or dark side.

The U.S. can never repay China. Never. The U.S. is going to be buried in debts and that's for sure. But the U.S. still has gold and some other resources to honor just a tiny part of its own foreign debts.

Now the U.S. can demand any small Banana Republic to follow its order in exchange of prompt repay. "Hey! You! I'll pay you back your one hundred million dollars of Treasury Bonds for gold and silver, you just do this and that dirty things for me."

Now you own the bank .... -- Toytoy (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Googlemeister (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Something like the old saying "Owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you; owe the bank $1,000,000, you own the bank." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Although perhaps it would be in the billions today (a million wouldn't even pay the hooker allowance for their execs). StuRat (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must admit I had not before heard that expression. Kind of like the 1 death is a tragedy, 1,000,000 deaths is a statistic? Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Our ancestors died for our freedom"

I hear this line a lot from Americans, and I'm curious about how true it actually is. Certainly in today's world, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very successful and multicultural democracies, arguably with more civil liberties and better human rights than the U.S. (I included only the colonies where the native population was eliminated and replaced by white settlers, since that's what happened in the U.S.) In the 20th and 19th centuries, Great Britain and its colonies seemed to be ahead in granting civil rights to natives and Africans. Even back in 1783, although the non-U.S. British North American colonies obviously didn't have autonomy, they weren't exactly North Korea style dictatorships either.

So, my question is: how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies? --99.237.252.228 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the US did gain more control over it's own affairs, including the right to vote, and that can be called "freedom". Also, the freedoms granted to other British colonies are likely at least in part due to the success of the American Revolution. That is, the British could see that denying the other colonies freedom to vote and a degree of autonomy would lead to more wars of independence, which would be expensive, and which they might lose.

However, I tend to think that winning WW2 was ultimately more important for maintaining freedom in the US and worldwide. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your "arguably" implies bullshit in the logic. Admittedly, some of the founding fathers of the US (Washington, Jefferson, others?) held African slaves, which is not much of a demonstration of "freedom" or "liberty." The British got rich transporting the slaves to North America, so they have absolutely no high moral ground. The American Revolution at least gained independence from the British and their evils. Edison (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My "arguably" implies that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the phrase that follows. There was no bullshit in the logic because I was offering an observation of what many believe, not an argument. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate that this question was closed, and marked as a "discussion", with no justification whatsoever. Just because the question may insult some fanatical American right-wingers who can't accept the facts does not imply that it's an open-ended invitation to a debate. My question was very clear:

"how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies?"

Granted, it's hard to measure this objectively. However, if we insisted on perfect objectivity in every instance, social science wouldn't exist because some amount of judgment is always necessary. Furthermore, I think this question is highly relevant and interesting because, as I said, I've heard many people claim "our ancestors died for our freedom" in relation to the revolutionary war. I'm simply curious about the extent to which this is true, and the extent to which it's unjustified nationalism.

StuRat offered some good points: I do know that, for example, the generosity of the Quebec Act was partially due to the unrest in the Thirteen Colonies. As for Edison's comments, with regard to slavery, I was referring to the fact that Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and slavery as a whole in 1833, which is 30 years ahead of the U.S. I'm also curious about what you consider the evils of the British, and for how long those evils affected the other British colonies to the north. (Again, not an argument; I'm in no way arguing that the British had no evils to speak of.) --99.237.252.228 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As always, this probably has something to do with American exceptionalism. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Freedom from rule by foreign powers, which, alas, we've allowed to erode over the years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you might argue that other freedoms have been eroded, such as privacy, but freedom from rule by foreign powers seems quite intact in the US, to me. StuRat (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Officially, sure, and maybe I should have said foreign influence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can compare the history of suffrage in the UK and USA, although different states in the USA can set different voting laws.

In the late 18th century, both countries still restricted voting to property-owning males.

The USA removed property restrictions for men in various states between 1812 and 1860 and the 15th Amendment nominally gave all men of all races the vote in 1870, while the UK didn't fully remove property restrictions for men until 1918. So white men in the USA were better off until 1918. However, blacks in some parts of the USA could not in practice vote until the 1960s. Hence if you were a poor black male, you were nominally freer in the USA from 1870 until 1918, but depending on where you lived, you might have been better off in the UK until about 1965. After that, I assume equality.

Some women got the vote in the UK (1918) before the USA, but full female franchise in the US came in 1920, and didn't come until 1928 in the UK. Hence, there wasn't much difference, but young US women were better off from 1920-1928.

On the other hand, people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK: for instance laws on libel, defamation, contempt of court and incitement to racial and religious hatred restrict speech in the UK. And laws on e.g. the right to avoid self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment rights) are clearer and perhaps wider in the US. In other areas, e.g. gay marriage, there is so much variation between states you can't make a general comparison. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can really make blanket statements like 'people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK'. This basically comes down to a value judgment about the extent to which different types of speech should be protected, and for example the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index gives the UK a slightly better score than the US. Anyway, going back to the original question, even if you did compile some sort of historical measure of freedom for the US and the UK, it doesn't really tell us what life would have been like for people in the British colonies in North America if the revolutionary war hadn't happened - for example, they could have gained independence in a different manner at a later date. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In some "what-if" discussions of alternative history we have been informed by references to fictional works as well as scholarly works. Have writers looked at possible evolutionary expansion of "freedoms" and individual rights in the 13 colonies or the eventual US, if the American Revolution had not been launched (King George makes some concessions which take the edge off the revolutionary fever), or if it had been a quick failure (the army surrendered, the Congress and national leaders captured)? Seems like a likely topic for speculative fiction. Edison (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think StuRat's second point is key here. If the 13 colonies hadn't rebelled, Britain would have continued to govern its colonies repressively and treated them as cash cows for the home country. (In essence, Britain did govern its non-settler colonies in Asia and Africa repressively and treated them as cash cows, and most of those colonies ultimately rebelled in the 20th century.) You could make a strong case that U.S. soldiers in the War for Independence died not only for the freedom of (white) settlers in the United States but also for the subsequent relative freedom of (white) settlers in the other British settler colonies (the areas that are now Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa). The British learned a lesson: If they wanted to retain the loyalty of white settlers, they had to allow them some autonomy. Of course, the relative decline of Britain as a global power during the 20th century would probably have led to independence for its colonies anyway, but that doesn't negate the historical reality that U.S. soldiers in the War for Independence fought for and won freedom from the British more than 100 years before it would otherwise have been granted.

On the other hand, your point about the lack of freedom of slaves and Native Americans is well taken. Americans who say that "our ancestors died for our freedom" are almost always white Americans with a blind spot for the history of racial inequality in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement: "the relative decline of Britain as a global power during the 20th century would probably have led to independence for its colonies anyway", I'm not sure I agree. That is, had Britain won the War of Independence and hung all the founding fathers of the US, they conceivably could have then kept the 13 colonies and all their other colonies as "cash cows", allowing them to retain dominance until today. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't know how counterfactual history would turn out, but the 13 colonies were not so lucrative for Britain, despite its efforts to wring cash from them. The Caribbean sugar colonies were much more valuable. The same, I think, is true of the other settler colonies. The real money makers were the colonies that produced cash crops (such as sugar) in demand in other European countries. The 13 colonies had tobacco, to be sure, and they would have become a valuable supplier of cotton to Britain's cotton mills. (In fact, independence didn't change that.) But the real money makers for the empire were the African and Asian colonies with their cash crops that could not be grown in temperate Europe. And those colonies did rise up in the 20th century. Another issue is that the region that became the United States would eventually have had a population that outnumbered Britain's. It's hard to imagine Britain leaving the area west of the Appalachians as a native preserve under the Proclamation of 1763 and foregoing the opportunities for further revenue in that region. It's also hard to imagine Britain passing up the Louisiana Territory after the Napoleonic Wars, and not hard to imagine British settlers leading the way for a conquest of much of what became the Mexican Cession. Even without the Mexican Cession, the population would likely exceed Britain's well before 1900. Eventually those colonists surely would have demanded autonomy. (In fact, in this scenario, there would be no distinction between Canada and the United States. Who knows what that country would have been called? North America?) Marco polo (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

99.237.252.228 -- From the strictly political point of view, the North American colonials were demanding either direct elective representation in the British parliament, or entrenched "constitutional" guarantees of local autonomy which couldn't be overturned by a simple majority vote in a future parliament. (It seems that no influential or powerful British politician condescended to even seriously consider either demand...) The "white commonwealths" (Canada, Australia, etc.) didn't receive the degree of autonomy demanded by the North American colonials until the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting and complicated question. The American Revolution was fought over the right of citizens to have a decisive role in their own governance. If having political sovereignty vested in the citizenry is "freedom", then independence created a society that was considerably "freer" than what had existed before. The Revolution unleashed democratic energies that many Revolutionary leaders did not intend or even desire. The suffrage was expanded; men who could have had no role in government in the old order could become influential political leaders. If you were a woman or a non-citizen (i.e. Indian or slave), your situation remained about the same.

And, as historian Gordon Wood had argued, the American Revolution put slavery on the defensive for the first time in history. Independence from Great Britain allowed the former colonies the option to outlaw slavery and the slave trade, which some colonies had tried do under British rule but had not been not allowed. Several northern states abolished slavery soon after independence, long before Great Britain; all 13 abolished the slave trade before Great Britain, though South Carolina later legalized it again. So how free you were depended on where and who you were. If you were a black person in 1800, you'd be better off in Virginia than Jamaica, but better off still in Massachusetts or Canada.

Is democracy freedom? Democracy can be a messy business and some people, then and now, prefer a more orderly system. Some Canadians regarded the War of 1812 as a fight against the spread of democracy, which they regarded with horror. Irish soldiers in Canada fled to the US, seeking more freedom. Black slaves in the US fled to Canada, seeking more freedom. Which place was more free? Depended on who you were. —Kevin Myers 10:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

From my own ancestral history, this "freedom" was largely that of forcing Native Americans west and occupying their lands just beyond reach of the state and federal governments that existed at the time--always migrating west just out of reach of The Law. Perhaps it was a form a yeomancy--the ability to own one's own land and live off it, with minimal interference from the government. The notion of owning land fee simple was a powerful motivator back then--and one not readily available in Europe. This, in my family's history, was something worth fighting for, whether against the Native Americans or the American state and federal government. Around 1850 though, they seem to have lost their nerve, in my case anyway. 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of "freedom" was not new with the creation of the American Republic: British subjects and American citizens were both "free" to elude the authorities and trespass on Native land. In both cases, authorities lacked the resources to restrain the tide of westward migration -- the frontier was just too big. But the notion that Americans migrated west to get beyond the reach of "The Law" is mostly an American myth, created by dime novels and movies. In reality, westering Americans worked to establish US law & order as quickly as possible. Often, of course, they wanted to establish law & order so that it could be used to restrain the recently dispossessed Natives. —Kevin Myers 23:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you had both groups, those wanting to escape society and those wanting to extend it. Those wishing to escape kept heading west until the frontier vanished, then perhaps went to Alaska. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mine, paternally anyway, seem to have been in the "escape government" group--always moving west just about when they started to get summoned for things like jury duty or "fixing roads", or serving in the militia. Got stuck for a century in southwest Missouri though. Perhaps from there the frontier looked rather bleak, for folk from Tennessee. Also, the "yeomancy" urge, and its inevitable conflict with Native Americans certainly predated the American Revolution. But there are a number of colonial "rebellions" of (mostly) common folk against the gentry/aristocracy/powers that be. Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 is an interesting example. It failed of course. In the aftermath my ancestors left the restored royal colony of Virginia for the largely lawless backwater of North Carolina--at least until that became unbearable as well. Too bad they couldn't read or write, else I might know a little more about their actual motivations! Pfly (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Owning stock in all (or most) available companies

Is there a term for owning stock in every company (or at least the major players) in a given industry/service? For instance, owning stock in Lowe's, The Home Depot, and Ace Hardware. If there is a term and article for this, my following questions might be answered by that article.

Also, is there any advantage to this? If, using my example again, hardware stores were an up and coming market then I would expect that it would be beneficial to own stock in all of them. After all they'd all be growing or, at least, most would grow and the companies that didn't grow might be bought out by those that did. Although, I can see the other side of the coin (if there are only two sides) in that when one goes bankrupt, the others might grow in value enough to balance out the losses. Dismas|^(talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like some sort of exchange traded fund or something like that, sort of a "sector specific" SPDR or something like that. --Jayron32 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, List of American exchange-traded funds lists several sector-specific funds, under the "Market sector ETFs" section. --Jayron32 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was an advantage to doing this, then wouldn't the market adjust prices to take account of this accordingly? Assuming that the market operated on rational principles - which has yet to be proven ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, if you don't use ETFs, simply an industry-focussed portfolio?

As for advantages, buying stocks in all companies in the same industry would minimise the intra-industry risks, for example the risk that Lowe's might perform badly due to increased competition from The Home Depot. On the other hand, it does nothing for the risks facing this whole industry. So if your portfolio is entirely exposed to a certain sector, then your fortunes will basically wax and wane with the average performance of that industry. It might be a good idea if you are absolutely convinced that this particular industry overall will keep going up, and you wanted to iron out the risk that any particular company within the industry might perform worse, with its share of the market taken up by another company within the same industry. It should also be noted that the flip side of protecting yourself against Lowe's losses (for example) is losing out on The Home Depot's gains, as the two will offset each other (how much depends on the weighting of your portfolio). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Companies that share certain characteristics may be referred to as a sector or industry, and investment professionals often refer to having a larger or smaller allocation of investment assets to a particular sector. Putting all of your money in a particular sector is inconsistent with good investment diversification, but it is sound to put more money in sectors you believe are strong and less money in sectors you believe are weak. (Well, arguably sound; you'll find that this is an effective test of the extent to which your beliefs on sector strength are reality-based.) You can achieve exposure to a particular sector through investment in a sector fund, of which there are many. These include index mutual funds and ETFs, as well as actively managed sector mutual funds. John M Baker (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't say he'd put all his money in one sector, only whether buying every stock in a sector is a good idea. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic History

Can we sort a type of history writing something dramatic history: which more concerns people's relations and characteristics and their dramatic stories? and if there, is there any examples? Flakture (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole genre of historical writing about "Great Men", which is similar to your description. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or there's the exact opposite: the Annales approach. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Biography is a literary form that comes close to what seems intended here by "dramatic history". Our article on Plutarch's Parallel Lives (which were written roughly two thousand years ago) points out Plutarch's stated intentions, that he "was not concerned with writing histories, as such, but in exploring the influence of character—good or bad—on the lives and destinies of famous men". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In biography the character himself is important no matter which information has dramatic value to be written. Parallel Lives is good example. more brief biographies and the attempt of writer to filter the informations in his view of history telling maybe ethical and important characteristics and so on. But I know not other noticeable work.Flakture (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

literature the chronicles of narnia the lion the witch and the wardrobe

what changes in nature are occuring as Aslan is coming nearer to narnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.229.10 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the worst kind of homework question for the reference desk: A question designed to determine whether an assignment was read. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Heck in this case, you could even watch the movie for the answer. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Underground Railroad Notable Locations

In the Wiki for the Underground Railroad there is a heading labelled "Notable Locations" under which is Pickering, Ontario. I am doing research on black settlers in the Pickering Township and was interested to see that Pickering was a notable location along the Underground Railroad. However, an explanation as to why it was notable is not given. If you could give me any information or sources where I could find such information that would be greatly appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad#Route 99.243.27.222 99.243.27.222 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Pickering Village, Ontario, states that the village was settled by Quakers. (Although Pickering Village is now part of Ajax, it was the main population center of Pickering during the 19th century.) Our article on the history of the Quakers states that they worked for the abolition of slavery. Very probably the local Quakers sheltered escaped slaves. The village's location along Lake Ontario and its supportive population would have made it a natural landing spot for escaped slaves carried across the lake by boat. You might contact the Pickering Township Historical Society for more information. Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gravestone materials

What is this gravestone made out of? I've done some searching on Google, and I've found some items that look somewhat close, but not close enough for me to be 100% sure. I've seen it only rarely, and I'm curious if thats' because of pricing, stylistic choice, or some other factor I'm not aware of. ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:06, 24 Av 5771 / 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gneiss. Deor (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pink granite gneiss. Do an image search for that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually a migmatitic gneiss - a google image search on that term shows some similar looking rocks. Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all! ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:02, 28 Av 5771 / 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

France Arab significant population

Which cities of France has significant population Arabs regardless which countries of Arab World they come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.247 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Paris, obviously... and probably most of the larger metropolitan areas throughout France. To some extent, it depends on what you mean by "significant"... for a small village in Alsace, having three Arab families living in the town may well be "significant". Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also guess Marseille. You could try this article List of mosques in France. Flamarande (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian

Can anyone give me all the names of any founder of any wikipedia of any language, who has an article written about them? Like Jimmy Wales as an example.Trongphu (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Larry Sanger comes immediately to mind.

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are the founders of the entire "Wikipedia" concept; which by default (because it was the first) was the English Wikipedia. In other Wikipedias, it may be hard to nail down a single "founder"; and for many of them it may not be a person who would merit a Wikipedia article. Other language Wikipedias were essentially "founded" by Jimbo and Larry as well... --Jayron32 21:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Those two people are the founder of English Wikipedia, the first wikipedia. How about other founder of other wikipedia of other language, who merit to have an article on wikipedia? I believe each of a wikipedia from any language has their own founder.174.20.71.229 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think other editions have their own founders. Wales and Sanger founded Wikipedia, which happened to be in English first. The next languages to come (which I believe were Catalan and German) were started up by their respective language communities, but they don't have founders other than Wales and Sanger. Pais (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is after the usernames of the editors who created the first articles in the non-English Wikipedias. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Like the one who first organize and develop or first become sysop or administrator. There must be the first one who started to do something on wikipedia on other language so basically those are the founder.174.20.71.229 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be Jimbo: See this link which I pulled off of History of Wikipedia. Wales ok'ed the idea of other language Wikipedias and set up and made the first edits in the first one (German). Nowadays the procedure is a bit more involved: Language_proposal_policy Rmhermen (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coprolalia in Japan?

From what I have read, profanity is not seen in the Japanese language, as it is in Western languages. This gave me a curious thought: If there's no swearing in Japan, does anyone there have a form of coprolalia, except perhaps going against Japanese etiquette, i.e. speaking out of turn, etc.? Or is coprolalia exclusive to languages with swearing?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the question about its existence. It seems I didn't read the article well enough. There is a 4% incidence of it in Japan, which means it is rare, but it is there. It does still beg the question: exactly how would it work?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The paper cited there includes a table of "Clinical characteristics of the patients reported by psychiatrists, pediatricians and all the respondents", but infuriatingly it's not in the html version. If you can track down a copy, that may help characterise the symptoms. Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is filled with Japanese profanities. Marco polo (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are some lists of vulgarities from the standard dialect with English glosses: [1] [2] [3]. The article doesn't say there is a 4% incidence in Japan, it mentions one study of Japanese Tourette's patients that found a 4% rate among those patients, along with several other studies whose results are all over the map, and says that there are methodological issues that affect all of the studies. -- BenRG (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Inflation without increase of money supply

An increase in money supply without any real growth causes inflation. However, what about a decrease in real output with an unchanged money supply and velocity of money? According to equation of exchange that would generate equally inflation. Is that right? Or would any central bank decrease the amount of money in the case of a recession? Quest09 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Cases of decrease in real output with no change in money supply are not that easy to find, though. One clear case is the Black Death of 1348-1350, which massively reduced output and caused prices of food and other commodities to skyrocket; see this page (The currency was gold and silver at that time, so the money supply was basically constant.) Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The effects or affects of government spending depend on where the money is spent. If, for example, it was spent on measures that would tend to increase income equality like public education, universal health care, progressive taxation, prison reform, renewable energy like wind, and synthetic fuel, then the increase in the money supply would grow the middle class and remain circulating as consumer spending. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That list is missing infrastructure improvement and commercial paper; alternatively, payroll taxes could be lowered and the work week could be shortened which would lower income inequality without increasing the money supply. Also making taxes more progressive, single payer health care, some sentencing reforms, and probably public education and some renewables and fuel synthesis would result in cost savings. Wouldn't those decrease the money supply? 208.54.5.210 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This depends somewhat on your definition of "inflation". Quantity-of-money theorists tend to define inflation in terms of the money supply, rather than in terms of prices. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Inflation is associated with increases in the cost of living, but it's not a direct causation. 208.54.5.210 (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Recessions tend to be deflationary, or at least not inflationary, since a lack of demand for products causes vendors to lower prices. An exception would be a recession associated with the shortage of a commodity, like in the 1970s when oil prices surged. In the case of the Black Death, the commodity in short supply was labor. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the modern world recessions cause a large drop in the effective money supply, primarily because they decrease the value of stocks, which are sufficiently liquid to act as money in many respects. They also can drop the value of other debt instruments that contribute to the effective money supply -- these secondary effects played a large role in the 2008 crisis. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

August 25

What happens when 2 parties in different countries are utterly unhappy with each other

Let's say Microsoft and Sony sign a contract in which Sony pays Microsoft $ 50 million for creating an operating system for Sony's new gadget. Sony pays the whole 50 million up front, and Microsoft says "Here's MS DOS 6.21 on a nice floppy disk, we're sure that this meets all specifications we agreed upon". Sony goes to a judge in the US having a basically sound case: Microsoft ripped us off, the least we want is our money back. Could a judge say "Well Sony, you're not a US based entity so you're not entitled to our law enforcement, which was meant and paid for by US entities, bad luck for you"? If not, why hasn't some politician come up with the brilliant idea that in cases between US entities/civilians and foreigners, the foreigners should always lose? (that would be similar to trade tariffs). 2) If both parties would have thought about such a problem, would a sentence in the contract "All problems will be settled under US law" have any real meaning? I guess there is no "higher" judge, at least not one countries like the US would submit their companies to? The reason for this question is that I wonder how billion-dollar deals are made between companies in different jurisdictions without the "safety net" of a wise authority both parties have to listen to decide who's right and what should happen next, let alone the enforcement of that decision. Joepnl (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The United States is a party to agreements with other countries meant to ensure that foreign corporations enjoy legal protection. If the United States were to engage in such outright discrimination against foreign corporations, it would certainly be found in noncompliance with trade agreements by the WTO, which would allow foreign countries to reciprocate against the U.S. The U.S. would basically be giving up on free trade. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sony has a U.S. division, employes a lot of U.S. residents, and does a LOT of business in the U.S. Why would it benefit the U.S. government to alienate them? The U.S. (and the states) make a lot of money on taxes from Sony; the distinction in the modern world on where the Worldwide Headquarters for a company are is ultimately unimportant, and it seems patently rediculous that any element of the U.S. government who actually understands one iota about how the world economy works would consider the above scenario reasonable. After all, other "flagship" U.S. brands aren't based in the U.S. either. Chrysler is an Italian company; Anheuser-Busch is a Belgian company, and yet no U.S. official wouldn't dream of discriminating against those companies merely because of where their world headquarters are located, given the amount of employment and business the companies do in the U.S. It is no different with Sony. --Jayron32 02:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Mwalcoff said above, many countries have bilateral investment treaties (or BITs) in place, and when a company from one country is mistreated by the authorities in another country, they can seek redress under the provisions of such treaties, often by way of international arbitration.

If you keep mistreating foreign companies, no-one will want to invest in your country, which is generally regarded as a bit bad for the economy as you lose jobs and money stops flowing in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Most contracts between entities based in different jurisdictions include a clause indicating under which jurisdiction any disputes are to be settled. In the case in the example, the agreement would include a clause stating that disputes are to be settled under the laws of New York State or Luxembourg, or whatever the parties agree to for practical reasons. --Xuxl (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In your hypothetical case, no contract with US corporations would be valid. A US corporation could always deny delivery or payment, and get away with it. In such a scenario, no one would do business with you. Quest09 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! Am I right to conclude that while there is no "superior judge" (let's say, the UN), countries will voluntarily will act as if there is one because doing otherwise would hurt their own interests too much; and to provide extra proof they will act nicely they set up treaties (sometimes even appointing a superior judge like WTO) so possible business partners are more assured they will? Joepnl (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. You can think of the WTO and other organisations as the "superior judges" which countries have voluntarily signed up to adjudicate or arbitrate their disputes. For BITs, one often-used "superior judge" is the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or ICSID, which is part of the World Bank. Both countries and individual companies can submit to the ruling of international "superior judges" for commercial disputes. The UN does play a role in this: the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law or UNCITRAL writes the rule book which is used in resolving many disputes.

Like many other aspects of international law, these "superior judges" are only binding because countries (or companies) choose to submit to them. But in many cases, it has become almost compulsory for countries to submit to these "superior judges" to be part of (and benefit from) the global market place. This is especially true with the WTO, as in return for following its rules you get equal or preferential treatment from the other members, and most countries in the world are members. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any contract entered into would identify the legal system within which the contract applies. All the other speculation is just noise as the contract itself is the authority for applicability.

ALR (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Totem Poles

As a boy Scout,I spent several summers at Camp Shagbark in SE Wisconsin. Situated on either side of the mess hall were 6 totem poles. We would be assigned to repaint them every summer, a practice I thought was disrespectful to whoever carved them. Anyway, I recently went on a nostalgic trip to my old summer place and was surprised to find the totem poles were gone. Does anybody have any information on what happened to them? I was there in the late 60's. <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.124.211 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything about this by searching the internet, apart from a photo showing what they used to look like. It seems as though Camp Shagbark has changed its name to (or been absorbed into) Camp Wonderland, so I'd contact the people at Camp Wonderland by email. They'd probably know best. I removed your email from this page because you don't want to attract spammers! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems as though beliefs about what constitutes appropriate maintenance (if any) of a totem pole vary. Here's one article that says many First Nations people think it's okay to repaint them. (I also somewhat doubt that the totem poles had any particular cultural significance, considering that groups that traditionally carve totem poles are in the Pacific Northwest, not Michigan. And the cartoon bird on the leftmost pole in the photo doesn't look like anything traditional at all - see here for how birds, most often ravens in traditional poles, are typically depicted.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's Wisconsin, not Michigan. Also, the bird on the camp totem pole doesn't look cartoonish to me, it looks rather realistic, at least compared with the highly symbolic look of birds on real totem poles. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Wisconsin (where there aren't groups that traditionally carve totem poles either). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 a totem pole fell at a Scout camp, killing a Cub Scout.[4] I expect a lot of camps took a good look at totem poles and may have removed any that were questionable. The totem poles in the photo look a lot larger in diameter than a utility pole; not being treated, they would not last as long. Here in Virginia, we had a Scouter who was a wood carver and worked for the power company so he had access to treated utility poles, so we have a number of totem poles at camp and the service center. They get inspected every year before summer camp opens. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

has anyone memorized the entire Bible?

I guess since I speak English, I would most want to know if there has ever been an individual who has memorized the entire Bible in English(the translation doesn't matter); if there has not been anyone who has accomplished this in English, has there been anyone to do so in any language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.132.12 (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar question a couple of weeks ago, although it derailed pretty quickly so I'm not sure if that helps. Anyway, certainly people have done this, although I can't think of any names specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This person says they know of two. This does not surprise me considering there are plenty of people who memorise similarly complex works (digits of Pi, for example) and to a Christian, memorising the Bible would seem like a decent use of your memory ability to enough people. It's got more use than the digits of Pi, anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It used to be an important part of Sunday school to read through the bible piece-meal and learn to recite every passage from memory. On completion the pupil got an awarded. These feats got passing mentions in some old Victorian novels but I think it continued up until quite resently.--Aspro (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly unusual about memorizing the entire bible. Many people probably have that much text memorized right now (think, for example, of how many song lyrics a singer may know; or an actor who knows lines from various parts they have starred in). What makes the bible seem "impossible" is that all the lines are in the same work; but I don't think, with proper dedication, it would be all that difficult or shocking for people to do it. Large chunks of the old testament were passed down through oral tradition, which requires many people to memorize it. Likewise, similarly long religious works are known to have been memorized throughout history, the Vedas were, and still are, memorized, and I think there's more text there than in the bible. --Jayron32 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The bible is about 800.000 words long. Seems pretty doable to me. A similar case, although the Qur'an is 1/10 of the lenght of the bible, is that of the Hafiz (Qur'an). Quest09 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• " the entire Bible in English(the translation doesn't matter)" You seem to imply that the Bible was written in English, and the others are just translations from it. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No he's implying that it doesn't have to be the King James translation. Joepnl (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverend Lovejoy: Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26: "The foolish man who built his house upon the sand."
Homer: And you remember ... Matthew ... 21:17.
Reverend Lovejoy (unflinching): "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there?"
Homer: Yeah. Think about it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"First pea/pee I have taken" joke

I was reading a linguistics paper by James McCawley which mentioned a joke whose punchline is "This is the first [piy] I have taken in seven years." ([piy] is IPA for both "pee" and "pea"; the joke needs to be spoken to work properly.) He gives only the punchline; how does the rest of the joke go? 69.224.115.82 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you can tell us exactly which paper you found this in. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that it helps, but the IPA wouldn't be [piy], which looks a bit unpronouncable, but in any case wouldn't sound like "pea" (you probably mean [pij] or just [pi]). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't IPA, but it's common enough in American linguistics (see Americanist phonetic notation). I expect McCawley himself wrote "[piy]". Pais (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"[piy]" is exactly what McCawley wrote, and the paper was called "The applicability of transformations to idioms." Which doesn't seem to be available online. 69.224.115.82 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the version of the joke I heard, decades ago, that wasn't the punchline, it was the setup. The punchline was that the other guy yells to everyone else in the room, "Look out! There's going to be a flood!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cue for the anecdote about the English Music Hall artiste Marie Lloyd, involving the very same ambiguity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.127 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rather a contrived pun, so I imagine the joke being something equally contrived:

The American ambassador to the Court of St. James's, after seven years living in a country where peas are served only as a premasticated and indivisible slurry, was delighted to discover a bowl of individually countable peas at a banquet in Washington, D.C. Sportively he plucked a single emerald orb from the bowl and declared to the assembled dignitaries, "Would you believe I haven't had a real pea in seven years?" To which an elder statesman growled, "I haven't had a real shit since the Gulf War."

LANTZY^TALK 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The fake fortune cookie fortune "Woman who cook carrots and peas in same pot very unsanitary" is similar. - Nunh-huh 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Soviet veto?

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 462

The resolution was adopted by 12 votes to two against (East Germany, Soviet Union) with one abstention from Zambia.

What happened to the Soviet "niet" vote? Why couldn't the Soviet Union veto this UNSC resolution? -- Toytoy (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (which is mentioned in the article, but its relevance should probably be made more clear). Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But how could a General Assembly meeting be used to pass a Security Council resolution? I thought that a UNGA resolution 337 "uniting for peace" meeting can only pass its own GA non-binding recommendations which has no enforcement power. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it was non-binding. The only action of that resolution was to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly on the subject, and it is up to each member whether to attend such a session. Therefore Resolution 462 didn't compel anything, so it was not veto-able. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabs and Somalis and Africans in Libya

Which cities of Italy have the significant population of Arabs (from Libya) and Somalis and Ethiopians and Eritreans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.16 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is not restricted to Arabic muslims, Islam_in_Italy#Present_situation has some basic stats; most Muslims in Italy live in the Northern third of the country (Lombardy, Friuli, the Veneto, etc) so I would expect that most North African Arabs and Somalis live in cities in the North (Milan, Genoa, Turin, Venice). Rome#Ethnic_groups does not list such groups as a significant ethnic minority, though Milan#Demographics does mention significant immigration from North Africa among other places. --Jayron32 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Africans in Belgium

Which cities in Belgium have significant population Africans from Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.16 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the above listed countries were once Belgian territories and got their independence fairly late - in the early 1960'ies. Like in India in colonial times, the exchange with the respective European imperialist country was not only political, but also one of trade and culture, and must have served as grounds for migration for the peoples of the above countries. Besdomny (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Immigrants in Netherlands

Which cities have significant population of Indonesians? Which cities have significant population of Surinamese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.16 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a majority of the "Indonesians" are Moluccans who are not necessarily excessively fond of being called Indonesian... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Hague is known for Indonesians (I wouldn't know how that happened), there is even a nostalgic song "The Hague, The Hague, the widow of Indonesia is you". Rotterdam has more Surinamese. But both groups are spread quite evenly around the country (apart from rural areas). (Which is not the case for other minorities b.t.w). Joepnl (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

From my time in Saudi Arabia, I think a number of workers were from Indonesia and the Philippines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not really fond of being called Indonesian either. LOL. And Surinam is in a whole other continent. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Academia and change of name

If you are a published author and you change your name, it will happen that your articles, books and other works will have a different nominal author. Would that pose a problem for those authors? And how common is this phenomenon? Quest09 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Many professional women choose to retain their maiden name when marrying to avoid this problem. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all - see Talk:Carol Grace#Her names. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know publishing academics who have taken all three different approaches - changed their name, kept their maiden name (at least for publishing purposes), or used a hyphenated name. All approaches are workable. If you change or hyphenate your name, there's certainly an issue with people having difficulty associating your work pre- and post-marriage (e.g. is Jane Q. Doe who published on stem cells in 2008 the same as Jane Q. Roberts who is publishing on stem cells in 2011?) From a practical perspective, though, anyone for whom it truly matters (e.g. tenure and grant committees) will have your CV, where it should be clear that you've changed your name, and which papers/books are yours. Doing a name-based search is somewhat unreliable anyway, because even without name changes it's entirely possible that there are two Robert M. Smiths doing similar work. As a final point, typically people marry relatively early in their careers, so not being able to find the 2-4 papers published (probably on a different subject) as a grad student typically isn't a show-stopper. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your last point is not very relevant. Even if people marry before they begin publishing, woman tend also to change their names back to their maiden name after a divorce, which can happen at any time during your academic career. Anyway, normally each scientist submits a list with his works, so there is no risk of your work not being found, unless someone is searching for you at Amazon.88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not just women who marry. For example Cat Stevens and Wendy Carlos, just off the top of my head. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And Cat Stevens changed his name twice. Also see Chad Ochocinco. --Jayron32 12:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The linguist Joan Bybee published under the name Joan Bybee Hooper (or Joan B. Hooper) through the 1970s and as Joan Bybee (or Joan L. Bybee) since the 1980s. I don't what the circumstances were (I assume Bybee was her maiden name, Hooper her married name, and she either got divorced or just decided she preferred her maiden name), though. In her own books, works published under Hooper are listed as Hooper in the References, and works published under Bybee are listed as Bybee in the References. Other people just have to learn that Bybee and Hooper are the same person. Pais (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And I have books by Nicholas Yermakov and Simon Hawke who are the same person. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately women who change their names don't seem to get any courtesy from scientific publishing - even NCBI PubMed doesn't have any feature to track changed names, nor for that matter names that can't be tracked by a first initial and a last name, like "H. Singh". Despite my suggestion... Wnt (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Kathleen Lindsay and the associated Ref Desk discussion from 2008. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Some immigrants from Russia to the United States have also famously changed their names, as well as many members of the Jewish disaspora who wish to avoid having Jewish-sounding names to reduce potential antisemitism. Alisa Rosenbaum becoming Ayn Rand, obviously, but she didn't have a record of publications before arriving in the United States. Mark Perakh is a good example: a mathematician who was known as Mark Popereka but changed his name after coming to the United States, and having been challenged by some of his intellectual opponents to produce his earlier work from when he was in the Soviet Union. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Before moving to the United States in the 1940s, Vladimir Nabokov had all his works published in Russian under the alias "Sirin". --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

August 26

North Vietmaneese tanks in the Vietnam War

A friend of mine was in US Army Intelligence in the Vietnam War. He tells me of an incident where they told their superiors that North Vietnam was amassing tanks, but their superiors didn't believe them until hundreds of tanks came across the border. What event could he be talking about? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the Battle of Lang Vei -- although the number of NVA tanks involved was certainly not in the hundreds. Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That was February 1968 - I don't think he was there that early. I'll ask him. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Easter Offensive in 1972 involved a large armoured force (and some surprises for US intelligence, who were divided on the possibility of an attack through the DMZ), though it was after the withdrawal of US ground forces. Shimgray | talk | 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds more like it and is probably the right time period. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In Great-Britain, monument to the dead soldiers after Islandhwana ?

Hello. Is there in Great-Britain any monument which was erected after the battle of Isandhlawana (as the "Maiwand Lion" in Reading) to commemorate the dead soldiers ? Thanks referently beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a memorial, including the Colour of the South Wales Borderers who fought in the battle, at Brecon Cathedral. More information (as our article on the cathedral is quite poor) here. Brecon also has the South Wales Borderers Museum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The preserved Colour is the actual one lost at the battle but found 13 days later in a river.[5] Also apparently there is a memorial book rest at Holy Trinity Church Aldershot.[6] Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Isandhlwana specifically, but apparently there is an "Afghan and Zulu Wars" memorial in Woolwich. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all ! Arapaima (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

John Westlake on enemy subjects

I'm looking for a source for a doctrin, ascribed to John Westlake. I found a quote from Westlake in German translation. Translated back to English it says: Enemy is not only the state, but enemies are also the citizens of the state war-leading against England.

I found literature by Westlake on the subject how to treat "enemy subjects", but I don't got his point. What is Westlake's position (with source/quote)?

Thanks for your support. -- 188.103.123.189 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any idea? -- 188.103.121.236 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

??? -- 188.103.105.60 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

how to uncover spy

how do I uncover spy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.168.7 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Join MI6? This isn't really a suitable question for a reference desk. The methods of counter-intelligence are very varied and what will work best will depend on the circumstances. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Take his hat off? --Jayron32 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much anything, apparently. Even watching how they draw their number 7s can give it away. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Though false conclusions could be thereby leapt to. Though English, I adopted the continental-style crossed 7 (7) when I was about eight, having lived abroad (the Far East) and seen how this avoided any possible confusion with some styles of writing 1. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.50 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Or check to see how they hold their fingers when ordering beers. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained income in somebody working in critical, top-secret areas is a sign that investigation is warranted. Then there are psychological tests that can identify an amoral personality. Having spent time in certain foreign nations is also suspicious, especially if not disclosed and explained. Lie detectors machines are often used, but I'm skeptical about their effectiveness. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that a spy is necessarily amoral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It rather depends on who they are spying on. Betraying your own people is itself considered immoral, but, if the people you work for are themselves evil, like say the Nazis, one could justify spying on moral grounds. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between amoral and immoral. In any case the basis for making the judgement on evil is itself entirely subjective. That's essentially saying "people who spy on my behalf are ok".

ALR (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say entirely subjective. You can define an objective criteria to which almost everyone would agree, which would say that killing millions of unarmed civilians, when not necessary to save the lives of even more, is evil. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Evil remains subjective, given your reliance on opinions there is no objectivity. However, in the context of the question it's made the point that establishing that someone is amoral isn't a reliable indicator were one attempting to establish who may be engaged in espionage. Indeed one might suggest, as some have, that being amoral is an advantage if one is an agent handler.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

When you get right down to it, everything is based on opinion. Even the weight of a cubic centimeter of lead is, since different people all read the results produced by the scale, and give their opinion as to what it says. But, like the case I gave, almost everyone will agree. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another useful example in context. The mass of lead is the mass of lead, the value of that mass is fixed within certain thresholds. Individuals assessing the value of that mass will make slightly different assessments, although take a big enough sample size one could identify a probable mass.

Where one is discussing "behaviours" the opportunity for objectivity is far more limited. If one were to take a sample within pre-WWII Germany the activities of the establishment clearly weren't perceived to be particularly "immoral". In identifying an agent in that environment one would have been looking for behaviour that differed from the accepted norm; objecting to internment of "undesirables", protecting or exfiltrating etc. In contemporary UK with a broadly liberal democracy those who might be considered a threat of espionage might be those espousing particularly authoritarian views. That's probably a bad example given the lunacy of some of our tabloid newspapers though.

Essentially the issue is deviation from the norm, for the population that one is considering. Again using a UK example, the recent furore over undercover police inflitrating certain anarchist groups. The officers in question had to conform to population norms in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves; participation in criminal violence, conspiracy to commit violene against property or the person, drug use, casual sex within the population etc.

ALR (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, "morality with a significant deviation from the norm for that society" is a good way to describe it. However, I disagree that in pre-WW2 Germany most people were in favor of the mass-murder of people they considered "undesirable". The evidence against this is that they started the Holocaust slowly, and in secret, worried that it would create significant opposition. In conquered nations to the East, however, where they weren't concerned about public opinion, they proceeded quickly, and without the same attempts to conceal the genocide.StuRat (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Get all the people to stand in a line. Then shout "Everyone who is not a spy, take one step back!". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotting spies is easy, you look for the guys in brown trench coats wearing wide rimmed hats, and if you're still not sure the broadsheet newspaper with eyeholes cut in it is usually the clincher--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that's meant as a joke, but does bring up a good issue. Spies are the opposite of James Bond. Being flashy and drawing attention is the last thing you want in a spy. Most of them look thoroughly forgettable. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is at the moment a rather unfortunate advertising campaign around Washington, DC, for the International Spy Museum that features all sorts of people in Mission Impossible getup (skin tight leather, fancy electronics all over them, hanging upside down from ceilings, etc.). It's really rather unfortunate given that the goal of the museum is to ostensibly present factual information, and most spies are quite unobtrusive looking by design. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I see where they are coming from. If they showed actual spies, people would yawn and ignore the exhibit, and never learn a thing. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the guys dressed all in black and wearing sunglasses that you've got to really watch out for. Those guys can get violent if they think that they've been rumbled, so I hear. Heh, this may be an apocryphal tale, but it was something my dad once told me about. Apparently M16 wanted to recruit some special forces (SAS?) guys for some covert mission or other - and they ended up with 15 guys with moustaches turning up on the day, all dressed from head to toe in black and wearing shades - who were then promptly told to go home. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Historically speaking the most effective way to uncover spies has been by spying yourself — the best way to catch spies is to have your own spies (ergo Spy vs. Spy). So the Soviets were able to uncover gobs of American spies thanks to their own spies, like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Americans uncovered spies like Klaus Fuchs, Julius Rosenberg, and Ted Hall by means of intercepted cables (VENONA) mixed with good old fashioned police work. Ames himself was caught after the CIA began investigating the assets of people in their own organization — a classic way to find misconduct or corruption in general — and finding the guy who seemed to be living well beyond what his paycheck paid him. (That wouldn't have worked for Fuchs or Hall, mind you, because they were ideological spies, and were not paid for their work.) Once they'd narrowed it down to a suspect, they kept close observation on him until they saw him committing illegal activities. Similar things happened in the case of Hanssen, except in that case, I believe, the FBI actually acquired some of the information on their mole from a for-hire mole in the KGB. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If one is considering HUMINT, given that there are other forms of intelligence gathering, then one either looks for the agents themselves, or the agent handlers. In practice counter-intelligence would look at both.

In the case of an agent one might consider motivation; financial, idealogical, blackmail and then look for behavioural characteristics that indicate risk. What makes people vulnerable and what indicators suggest that vulnerability is being exploited.

If considering the agent handlers then examining their behaviour might lead to agents.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And note that the honey trap doesn't always have to take the form of blackmail. The person being recruited as a spy may genuinely love the person who entices them to spy. One common line is "they would finally allow us to marry/live together if you only do this". StuRat (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Andrew's history of the UK's counter-intelligence agency, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorised History of MI5 begins with the problem of bootstrapping a counter-intelligence function, when you don't have much of an idea where to begin. It starts with the run up to the outbreak of World War I, with it becoming clear that the German Navy's intelligence service would be very interested in the movement of the Royal Navy's shipping, and might attempt to sabotage the shipping or ports (they desperately did want to do that, and succeeded in the US). It begin amid some general hysteria (drummed up by a rather bad sub John Buchan-type novelist, who wrote hysterical stories in the popular newspapers alleging Britain was teeming with shifty-eyed hun agents). This led to the police being beset with all kinds of rather fanciful reports about strange lights at nights on rivers, and funny looking blokes hanging around (bizarrely even Charles Rennie Mackintosh was suspected by his Suffolk neighbours, due to his funny accent, arty style of dressing, and the collection of German art books he had). MI-5 had its work cut out responding to all this nonsense; their salvation was that the German intelligence effort was even more inept. They recruited neutral parties who might travel through British ports (looking for rascally types, it seems) most of whom happily rolled them over to the Special Branch. They even wrote to a guy who lived in the port town of Leith, on the basis that he had immigrated from Germany (some 20 or so years previously, and was happily married to a Scotswoman); they politely enquired whether he might like to post them regular letters detailing the movements of Royal Navy ships of the line that he might see from his home. Naturally he too flipped them to the police at the first opportunity. The Germans' daftest mistake was that they used the same postal box in Rotterdam for all these spies. Vernon Kell, the service's chief, prevailed upon the Home Secretary to allow wholesale mail intercepts (overcoming the "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's correspondence" argument), and they quickly found and turned pretty much every spy the German Naval Service had in Britain (and then proceeded to manufacture lots of fake new ones to keep the Germans busy and happy). MI-5 quickly gained world-leading expertise in mail intercepts and in exploiting the leads this gave them. Intelligence, and counter-intelligence, has naturally come a long way since (it matured remarkably even over the course of WW-I) but the secret seems to be the same - lots of low-level trawling until you get a lucky break, then pull on that thread to unravel as much of the opposition's network as possible. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to "The Riddle of the Sands", the description would seem to be somewhat inaccurate... AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Andrews talks about William Le Queux. In addition to The Invasion of 1910 (which, as the article says and Andrews confirms, was rewritten by the Daily Mail to reroute the German invasion through towns where that paper sold well), his 1909 Spies of the Kaiser claimed England hosted "a vast army of German spies". It seems that many people, and particularly Le Queux himself, failed to differentiate between such pot-boiler novels and actual facts. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gutenberg has a copy of Spies of the Kaiser here. The author's introduction, where he writes "What I have written in this present volume in the form of fiction is based upon serious facts within my own personal knowledge... The number of agents of the German Secret Police at this moment working in our midst on behalf of the Intelligence Department in Berlin are believed to be over five thousand", sounds remarkably like Wikipedia:The Truth. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, "The Riddle of the Sands" seems to have been much more influential in high circles at the time, and is certainly better-remembered today, but Le Queux could have had the greater sensationalistic best-seller. What it really sounds like is the Red Scare... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They were not the only ones in WWI who believed Britain had been over-run by German spies. Noel Pemberton Billing, an aviation pioneer and MP, made claims that now seem hilariously lurid, but which then got him popular acclaim sufficient to be re-elected:

Billing took the view that homosexuality was infiltrating and tainting English society, and that this was linked to German espionage in the context of World War I. He founded a journal, Imperialist, in which he wrote an article based on information provided by Harold Sherwood Spencer which claimed that the Germans were blackmailing "47,000 highly placed British perverts" to "propagate evils which all decent men thought had perished in Sodom and Lesbia." The names were said to be inscribed in the "Berlin Black Book" of the "Mbret of Albania". The contents of this book revealed that the Germans planned on "exterminating the manhood of Britain" by luring men into homosexual acts. "Even to loiter in the streets was not immune. Meretricious agents of the Kaiser were stationed at such places as Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner. In this black book of sin details were given of the unnatural defloration of children...wives of men in supreme positions were entangled. In Lesbian ecstasy the most sacred secrets of the state were threatened".

Etc., etc. If male homosexual acts are illegal, then a significant minority of the population becomes vulnerable to blackmail. In a country at war, all gay men became potential spies, in the eyes of the paranoid. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Billing sounds like one of those "Colonel Blimp" quasi-reactionary types in the tradition of Colonel Sibthorp, who sometimes achieved some success in local politics in Britain despite having overall world-views which were eccentric in the extreme... Significant antagonism towards Germany was actually stirred up more than a decade before the outbreak of WWI, when Germany started building a dreadnought fleet to rival Britain's (see German Naval Laws, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan, Kaiserliche Marine etc.). For Germany, its navy and overseas colonies were more of a symbolic show-the-flag international prestige type of thing, rather than having any great practical importance, while Britain was a maritime power which was not self-sufficient in food production, and so was basically dependent on shipments of food from overseas to avoid starvation -- and this meant that Britain would do whatever it took to match and exceed Germany in the naval arms race, regardless of the cost, as a life-and-death matter. In the end, the German navy-building efforts played a very significant role in driving Britain into an alliance with France without giving Germany any greatly compensating military advantage when the fighting actually began... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting a tag here (somewhat experimentally) to display BrainBabe's references.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Are Jesus Christ and his life chronicled in any contemporaneous Jewish scriptures and/or in any Roman documents written at the time of his life and death in Judea and Jerusalem? Thanks. 94.172.117.205 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Historicity of Jesus goes into a lot of detail on the various sources available about Jesus. I haven't read the article recently, but if memory serves there aren't really any contemporary sources. --Tango (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Something to remember... the fact that no contemporary sources exist today, does not necessarily mean that they never existed. It is certainly possible that there were records which mentioned Jesus which were destroyed during the Siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is also possible that the Romans had a record... but it was purged by officials once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.... This would be very likely if such records said something that contradicted the biblical account. Of course, such possibilites are pure speculation (and as such, could not go into any Wikipedia article)... but both are, I think, realistic scenarios. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar -- Christians didn't have much meaningful power within Roman officialdom until after 325, and I find it difficult to imagine that relevant administrative records would have survived the devastation of the First Jewish Revolt and the Second Jewish Revolt, as well as two succeeding centuries (at a time when most government records were concerned with details of taxation, and were of little interest once they were no longer of current relevance for extracting tax revenue). Christians didn't censor Pliny the Younger's letters on Christianity in Anatolia or Julian's Misopogon, so it's hard to imagine why they would have been greatly concerned with (probably non-existent) musty old minor administrative documents... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is important to realize that 30 AD records exist for a tiny, tiny, vanishingly small portion of people who lived in the Roman Empire. Absence of government records is not any sort of proof of nonexistence. See also Josephus on Jesus, the writings of a first century historian. Edison (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

94.172.117.205 -- The short answer is "no", but the existence of Jesus is still about as well established as that of any other individual from ancient times who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in strictly-contemporary inscriptions. Note that it's very clear from the New Testament itself that Jesus had no real impact outside Judea, Galilee and closely-neighbouring areas during his lifetime... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the OP and I really appreciate all the above answers, none of which really surprise me. I am a lapsed and doubting Thomas kind of Catholic in the UK and was visited by some Irish Missionaries who tried to get me to return to the fold. In so doing they gave me a load of leaflets and pamphlets to read which I dutifully did. Although they were brimming with stories of saints and miracles and stories of Jesus' sermons and his miracles and his Crucifixion and ascent into Heaven etc., my own researches revealed what I already suspected which was that everything in the New Testament was written at least 100 years after His death by people who never met him and were relying on tales they had been told. And why would the writers of the gospels have been able to write them anyway. They were poor Fishermen who I guess would not have been able to read or write anyway? None of that means that Jesus did NOT exist of course, but I am genuinely concerned that so much reliance has historically been placed and acted upon throughout the subsequent centuries without any real researchable evidence. But thanks again. Doubting Thomas. 94.172.117.205 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, it's more probable that the synoptic gospels were written within 50 years after Jesus' death, and John within 70 years, while authentic letters by Paul were of course written within less than 40 years after Jesus' death. And the gospel-writers are not a subset of the 12 Apostles (obviously there's no apostle named "Luke" among the original 12). The synoptics were written because the number of Christians was growing, while the number of direct eyewitnesses was decreasing, so that the previous mainly informal methods of spreading knowledge among Christians (i.e. oral transmission, supplemented by letters from various early Christian leaders in the possession of various different local churches) were presumably no longer adequate to the task of maintaining consistent doctrine across a geographically-dispersed church. The gospel-writers were not historians, and did not set out to write history as such (among the four, only Luke is really historically-minded in the Greek sense), but very few serious scholars (other than John Allegro!) seriously doubt Jesus' historical existence. The New Testament doesn't really provide a historically-documented account of the life of Jesus in the modern sense, but it does provide a fairly fully-rounded depiction of Jesus, in a way that's only available for a relatively few personalities of ancient times... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to be a Christian yet consider Jesus as a kind of symbol or metaphor, as something meaningful whether or not he actually existed as an individual? I imagine that for most Christians the answer would be no--he must have lived and died literally, more or less, as documented in the Bible, else the whole thing is meaningless. But, is such a viewpoint required for one to be a Christian? Can one not "put aside" the question of whether he did or did not live and die as the Bible says and find the religion meaningful and sacred nonetheless? I have a hard time understanding why it matters. Value, meaning, and spirituality can be found in all religions, no? Why does it matter whether the specific doctrines and tales are literally true? Sometimes, when I see people who were raised Christian and then came to doubt and reject it, I wonder whether they are overreacting--frustrated about the loss of it being literally true they throw the whole thing away, even the parts that don't require literal belief. The history of Buddhism in China and Japan is fairly well documented, but there are obvious gaps and places where individuals who may not have existed have been raised to legendary status, such as Bodhidharma. Even teachers who clearly existed have frequently been glossed over with myths and legends to the point where they were likely nothing like the way they are made out to be in the scriptures. Like Jesus, Gautama Buddha was probably was a real person, but the tales about him were not written down until long after he died (something like 400 years later!). It's highly unlikely he was anything like the person he is made out to be in the Buddhist scriptures. It's likely that Bodhidharma never existed as an individual. His story is far more legend than historic. In Taoism, the "founder" Laozi probably never existed as a specific person, but this does make the Tao Te Ching any less powerful? Why must the historical facts matter for one to be religious? The point is not whether the scriptures are historically accurate, unless you are a historian. The religious point is what they say about life and death, how to find meaning and peace, and so on. I just don't see why the historical questions about Jesus matter, religiously speaking. Clearly they do for many people though. Pfly (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an important matter for most religions because they deal in Revealed Wisdom. If Jesus Christ was NOT truly the son of God, his teachings become meaningless (and some quite evil, if he KNEW he wasn't). When you compare this to the Tao Te Ching, this is less of a concern. Take another example - Socrates. We do have evidence of his life, existence, and death through independent sources. However, even if we did not, every OUNCE of wisdom is just as valid, because they were thought by SOMEONE. That someone could be another person, or even the writer making it up. This parallels science - the Theory of Relativity could have been authored by anyone, and it would hold as much weight as it does today - not simply 'because Einstein wrote it.' This is not the case in religious doctrine; IT IS TRUE (supposedly) because of WHO SAID IT. Ehryk (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

From a Quaker or Buddhist perspective, where truth is subjective, it wouldn't matter whether the Jesus actually lived, died, and rose from the dead. But that is not a mainstream Christian perspective: it is represented in the Gospels by Pilate, who asks "What is truth?". As Paul says in one of the Epistles citation needed, if Christ didn't really die and rise from the dead, then what basis do we have to believe that we ourselves will rise? "Our faith had been in vain". Or, as Thomas Aquinas put it in Adoro te devote, "Truth himself speaks truly, else there's nothing true." Christianity is a religion, in the mainstream, which preaches an objective truth exists. Unless you grant that the speaker had some special authority, statements like "you will be judged according to how you judge others" are just, like, your opinion. Christianity says they are true, even if you reject them. 86.164.26.163 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm and the context from verse 9 to verse 19.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfly -- I have to second 86.164.26.163 on this one. Much less is known about Buddha than about Jesus from a historical point of view: -- to begin with, Jesus' birth and death dates are known within 5 years or so, while it's extremely difficult to even assign Buddha to a specific century (based on available historical evidence). Also, much less is known about the historical details of India during Buddha's time than is known about the Roman empire during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. And there are prominent trends in Buddhism (especially Mahayana) which deemphasize the historical Gautama Sakyamuni by having him just be one detail within a whole grand cosmological scheme of multiple saviors from past and future epochs. By contrast, efforts to decouple the cosmic Christ from the historical Jesus (as it's sometimes expressed) have not been influential in Christianity, and are rejected by the traditional "orthodox" Christian mainstream... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Tribes and Reservations in the United States

The article on indian reservations in the United States says there are 'about' 550 tribes and 310 reservations. What are the exact numbers? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Some tribes are federally recognized, which means a lot, others are only state recognized, while others are struggling to be recognized at all. Technically, only the federal government can create Indian Reservations. The Indian reservation page seems to say that there are "550-plus recognized tribes" and "about 310 Indian reservations". Why it is vague I don't know. It seems that it should be something subject to exact numbers. Note that a single tribe may have more than one reservation, and some recognized tribes have no reservation at all. Still, it seems like something we should be able to keep abreast with. Pfly (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation is probably somewhat complicated by situations where what used to be one tribe has "split" into two, like the Cherokee, where there are Cherokee in Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians) and in North Carolina (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) and in which operate seperately by governance, but historically are the same tribe, so it complicates how you count them. There are probably many tribes like that. As of October, 2010 there were 565 Federally recognized tribes, but there are also many state-recognized tribes which don't have federal recognition. That number may be changing soon; Congress is currently working on passing a bill to recognize the Lumbee. See [7]. --Jayron32 12:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several reservations which are shared between two or more tribes like the Wind River Indian Reservation shared by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho or occupied by semi-unified tribes like Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, home to Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations). How you handle these might affect the number of reservations. Also recently recognized tribes may later acquire land to from a reservation. The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan only got their 147-acre reservation in 2009. The highest number I see on this map is 303 but the number are in no order and I might have missed something higher. Rmhermen (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Point of the Compact of Free Association

Is this understanding of the Compact of Free Association correct: the United States gives the governments of those countries money in exchange for being able to run their militaries?

Are there any benefits to the citizens of the Association countries? Is it easier to travel to the States or get US citizenship? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't run their military, the U.S. is their military. And as far as benefits regarding residency and citizenship, that is covered pretty well in the article itself you linked. You can think of the Compact of Free Association as part of the continuum between "U.S. Statehood" and "Completely unrelated sovereign nation". In other words, they aren't like Hawaii, but they also aren't like Australia. The status of those countries lies on the "sovereign state" side of the line, but just barely. In many respects, their status is not all that different from Commonwealths like Puerto Rico, except in some small ways that allow them to claim sovereignty where Puerto Rico doesn't. But even Puerto Rico is recognized as more sovereign than other U.S. territories. It's a complicated situation, and doesn't allow easy categorization into convenient binary choices. --Jayron32 13:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that the US wants to be their military to have strategic outposts in the Pacific? Otherwise why would the US want to give them financial support. Also, the article is mute on the topics of citizenship, taxes, etc. --CGPGrey (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Under "Economic provisions" it has numerous statements which indicate the relationship of the residents of those countries with mainland U.S., including "The U.S. treats these nations uniquely by giving them access to many U.S. domestic programs..." (and following) and "Most citizens of the associated states may live and work in the United States, and most U.S. citizens and their spouses may live and work in the associated states.[3] In 1996, the U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act included removing Medicaid benefits for resident aliens from these states. (Most other resident aliens have a five-year waiting period.)". They are not citizens of the U.S., but they have rights which lie between citizens and non-citizens. The article also has further information under the "2003 renewal" section, which covers some of the changes to these statuses from the original compact. Residents of these states do not pay taxes to the U.S., but do pay taxes to their own national governments; as covered in the individual articles about them. --Jayron32 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

One big benefit is that they are safe from invasion by their neighbors, which otherwise might be a threat for such small nations. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

High Chief vs Chief

Why were Indian chiefs always refer to as chiefs while Polynesian chiefs were high chiefs? When and why did the difference started?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is Luxembourg led by a Grand Duke, and why were the leaders of the Habsburg family Archdukes, and why was William the Conquerer only a Duke? Why did Ireland have a High King? It probably has to do with a difference in heirarchical structure; i.e. the High Chief would have had subordinate chiefs under him, ruling smaller realms or owing him fealty. Native American tribes had the equivalent of High Chiefs as well, see Sachem.--Jayron32 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Chief is an English term, different tribes used different terms. See Category:Titles and offices of Native American leaders. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wich date of the race is correct?

There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb (locomotive) and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830 [8] [9] [10] or September 18 1830 [11] [12] or August 25 1829 [13]? If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Anthony J. Bianculli's Trains and Technology: Locomotives, 'In August of 1830 the tiny Tom Thumb carried B&O directors thirteen miles along the road in one hour and twelve minutes. The return trip was made in fifty-seven minutes, excluding four minutes for a water stop midway. Tom Thumb's successful run will ever be overshadowed by the loss of a fateful race with a horse, generally, but wrongly, reported to have occurred on the return trip with the directors.' So when was it? 'There is strong evidence that the contest occurred on 18 September 1830'. The phrase 'strong evidence' suggests that the precise date can't be proved beyond all doubt. --Antiquary (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. But that is about unother dates? Why they exist in some links? There they have been took from? Do you know? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

US airforce, served Germany

Trying to locate a girl born to a young airforceman serving in Germany approx 1966-70. I have fathers full name and possible first name of mother and Christian names of child. Girl may have been born in an air force base hospital in Germany or maybe a regular community hospital. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You might as well list whatever info you have. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Germany has very strict privacy laws, so you will not be able to search birth records, for example. There may be organizations or Internet bulletin boards where people seeking their biological parents might post queries. Those kinds of venues might be your best hope, unless you have more information that would allow you to track down the mother or child. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But if she was born at a US Air Force base, wouldn't US privacy laws apply to those records ? StuRat (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

China

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is China going to take over the world? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC) It says at the top of this page "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC) It might be helpful to note that there were similar predictions about Japan back in the 1970's and 80's. However, they eventually lost their competitive advantage of starvation wages, and so will China. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) The decline of Japan had relatively little to do with it no longer being a lowest-wage-cost producer (something which happened many years before the beginning of the "lost decade")... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC) See discussion on the talk page. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't China taken over the world? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you expect China to take over the world? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are not as many people in China who have experienced the disappointment of wealth. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, China has had no interest in taking over the world, they saw little point in trying to rule over a bunch of foreign barbarians when they have all China, and sought only to extract a little tribute from those closest to them. 79.66.99.126 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice that there is only one true tradition: all traditions are subject to change. What China did or not do during her past doesn't bind the country's current leadership. They may change laws, dismiss treaties, change habits, create new traditions. Future leaders of China (or any country of the world) may want to take over the world. If they are truly able to pull it of is another matter. Flamarande (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Everybody Wants to Rule the World. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Does China have the resources to take over the world? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not with its current military. It can't even take over Taiwan for Pete's (Mao's?) sake. (I should qualify that. It might be able to conquer the island, but at an unacceptable cost.) Also, its government is more concerned about staying in power than taking on additional risks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Like the players of the traditional prisoners' dilemma game, most nations have found that it is always in their interest to cooperate, as long as other nations are not defecting. Our cooperation technology continues to increase, but problems with, for example, finance, have long kept nations from being able to optimize the extent to which they cooperate. All indications is that this is becoming easier.

However, I would like to get to a related question. China has a surplus of men and a deficit of women. Does this destabilize China's politics or make it more likely that they would be aggressive? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 27

Saint Mary Lake, Montana

In your article on "Saint Mary Lake Montana" you mention (and show photos of) Little Chief Mountain, but there is no mention of Mount Saint Mary. This mountain shows the face of Mary when viewed from the right angle and should be mentioned in your article. After all, the town of Saint Mary Montana as well as the lake, were named after this face on the butte north of town. I'm told that there is even an interesting legend that goes with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.104.215 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you any relevant material backed up by reliable sources, please feel free to add it to the article yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

income amount and number of persons

I'm looking for a table of number of persons having the same income within sequential steps from minimum to maximum number of persons and amount of income. I need the data to build a two axis x and y graph. I prefer gross income upon which taxes are calculated. So long as all other parameters are the same for the group the other parameters do not matter. Where can I find such data in a list or table form. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You must have read the word "income" and the word "graph" and instantly thought of the comparison between your income and that of Bill Gates. However, my purpose is not to compare incomes. If it was I would note that if Bill Gates diverted all of his income to poor people he could only afford to give $40,000 to one million two hundred fifty thousand. Now please concentrate on helping me find the data I have requested. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read your question about 20 times now, but I still have no real idea what you're after. Can you explain it some other way? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar (below) is only incorrect in that the orientation of the data does not matter, ie. either axis may represent people or income. If it helps think of a two column table. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume we are looking for a chart with gross income amounts on the X axis, and numbers of people on the Y axis. You can also point to tables or lists of income amounts or ranges of amounts in the first column with the number of people in the range in the second column. Very simple. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you after something like the table here, with average incomes per quintile (data from 2005, so something more recent must be available)? Warofdreams talk 14:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The summary tables are probably as close as I am going to get. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what you want can be found through http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Econometrics/.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

NO, I have all of the math tools. Just need the data. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP has not specified any particular country or jurisdiction, or any particular time period. It might help if these basic items were spelt out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pinpointing may be somewhat pointless by adding further restriction. Lets say the income of each individual from minimum to maximum in the US for 2010 or 2011 in steps of say $10,890.00 with numbers of people for each step. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it, I'm afraid. If we go by your first sentence, you ideally want this data for all people at all times, from the beginning of recorded history and in all the countries of the world. Do you seriously believe such data exists? To your second sentence, why did you choose a step of $10,890? You must have had a reason for not choosing, say, $10,000. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Last stands etc

Can folk help me identify the places/events represented by the seven images at this page. I think #2 is Modadishu/Black hawk down; #5 is the Alamo; #6 is Iwo Jima. The others I haven't sussed yet. TIA. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1 is Leonidas I. —Kevin Myers 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe #7 is the Little Bighorn Battlefield. —Kevin Myers 09:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

4 is the Rorke's Drift Zulu memorial. —Kevin Myers 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah 2 is Battle of Mogadishu (1993) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S64-Crew.gif. ny156uk (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No 3 is the "Rats of Tobruk" memorial in Mackay, Queensland, commemorating the Siege of Tobruk in 1941. Do we win a prize? Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So to summarise: 1 Leonidas; 2 Black hawk down, 3 Tobruk, 4 Rorke's drift, 5 Alamo, 6 Iwo Jima, 7 Little Bighorn. Sadly no prize, but I can now progress in solving a puzzle in order to find a geocache. Thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Syphax

In the article on Syphax it says: However, Scipio's ship managed to make harbor before Hasdrubal's seven triremes could make out to intercept them, and in a neutral harbor... How many men were on Hasdrubal's seven triremes? How many men were on Scipio's ship? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The present day Greek Navy has its very own trireme; the Olympias built with the assistance of the Trireme Tust. It has 170 oars, so my guess would be in the region of 200 plus or minus 50. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article on ancient triremes also says 200. But it's also possible that they were carrying infantry on top of that, ready to fight upon landing. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

acting in the 16th century

during the 16th and 17th centuries in England, amongst other artists, each acting group would be under the patronage of a particular noble or senior government official. However, what I am trying to understand now is why that had to be the case. The impression I have gotten is that at least some of these acting groups made a decent profit, so what other reasons might there have been to require that? Or was it just the way things were done and people could not imagine doing it otherwise

79.66.99.126 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A look at our article on the English Renaissance theatre might be helpful. I wasn't aware that every acting group needed a patron, but it is generally true that there was a lot of political hostility toward acting in those years, and protection from somebody powerful would have been very useful. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason actors might be unpopular with rulers is their tendency to satirize leaders or otherwise insult them or their beliefs. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

One reason perhaps, but the English theatre enjoyed remarkable freedom for much of the period (compared to other European countries that is). I think it's rather more likely that:

a) As now, theatre productions needed advance funding before a profit was realised; a rich patron would be their principal investor.

b) Having a powerful patron would be a way of getting things done. Easier to get credit and less likely to be stalled by petty bureaucrats.

c) It was rather like having a celebrity endorsement today. The best form of advertising.

Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Company X offers to buy company Y - company Y's shares go up?

Hello.

Often, when it becomes known that Company X wants to buy Company Y, the latter's shares rise significantly in price. Why is that so? Is it because investors think they'll be able to sell their shares to Company X at a higher price than the market price? Or is it for some other different reasons? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but AFAIK it's largely a matter of supply and demand. If company X wants to buy and truly control company Y it has to own 51% of the shares. So it will buy all available shares in the market. We have a major buyer who is buying a lot of shares; i.e.: the demand of the shares is going up and the supply is going down. Other shareholders will consider selling them but obviously only for a very good price. The articles takeover describe some issues. Flamarande (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a purchase is made of another company with the intent of combining the two to make a stronger combined company (for example, one company makes glasses and the other makes contact lenses). This could help both companies improve their market positions and reduce cost via combined advertising, sales and management staff, so should theoretically bring up both stock prices.

And note that this is common when the target company is distressed in some way. Presumably the company which plans to buy them also plans to fix this situation. If the target is well managed but low on cash due to market problems, they might just provide the injection of cash which is needed. If, on the other hand, the target company is seriously mismanaged, then a new management team may be put in place.

There's also the case where the target company is beyond saving, and the purchaser is only interested in breaking it up and selling off it's assets. However, in this case, the stock price may be so depressed that even this would make the stock worth more than it's current value. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The underlying reason is that once company A owns 51% of company B, it can hand-pick the management of company B and therefore has total control over how company B is operated. This has a couple of consequences. First, the current management of company B is usually hostile to such a deal, because at best they will have new bosses and at worst they will be fired -- it takes generous money to the shareholders to overcome that hostility. Second, anybody who continues to hold minority shares after the deal is in danger. Most publicly traded companies try to operate in a way that maximizes their stock value, but when company B is majority-owned by company A, it may be operated in a way that benefits company A but harms itself. The rules say that shareholders have to be offered a way of avoiding that danger without being forced to accept a stock price that they might see as too low. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a hostile takeover. That's only one type. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual reason is that outside investors believe they will be able to make a few percentage points of profit in a matter of weeks because they expect Company X to offer a slightly higher price for the shares than the current price. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You may also find the article on merger arbitrage highly relevant; although I don't understand why that redirects to risk arbitrage - in fact the risk arbitrage article seems to be more or less entirely about merger arbitrage, but merger arbitrage is merely one form of risk arbitrage. But whatever And it hasn't explicitly been stated above but a majority of shareholders (to the first approximation) have to agree to the takeover - and they will only rationally do so if the amount offered for their shares is higher than the current market price. So the offer price has to be over the prevailiing market price. Then said merger arbitrage will take the current price near to, but not over the offer price (assuming no other offers are expected). Egg Centric 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily, buyers have to pay much more than the market price when seeking to take over another company. Think about it this way: The assessed value of your house may be $250,000. But if someone were to drive up to your door and ask to buy your house right away, the person would probably have to offer a lot more than $250,000. After all, you like your house, you've lived in it for a long time and you weren't planning on moving. Similarly, the people who run Company Y aren't likely to want to give up control of their company for market price. Also, the market price of a stock is based on what it costs to get one owner to sell his or her shares. While one person may be willing to part with his or her shares for $50 each, it will take a lot more to convince the owners of a majority of the shares to sell them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Artist search

I recently purchased two paintings on board dated 1896 and signed "yeldarb a". Searching for this artist proved fruitless and then I realized that the signature was written backwards. It reads, of course, A Bradley. The scenes are of Scottish lochs and when I reframed them this was confirmed on one. Behind the mounts were old newspapers of the same year so I don't doubt there authenticity. Now, does any one know who A Bradley was ????

Keith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.54.147 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Only possible A. Bradley I could find was Arthur Granville Bradley (son of George Granville Bradley), he authored a book on Scotland in 1912 with illustrations, but the paintings themselves were by a certain A.L. Collins. Nevertheless, check out the book (it's public domain): A.G. Bradley (1912). The Gateway of Scotland : or East Lothian, Lammermoor and the Merse (PDF). Ballantyne, Hanson, & Co..

In case the 'A' might mean some other thing than a first name, another British artist from the same period is Basil Bradley, he usually did pastoral scenes (see examples: [14], [15], [16], [17]). It would probably help if you took a picture (in fact I encourage you to donate a picture of them, they're public domain anyway).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography/GK question

Bikini Island and Bikini Atoll location - Micronesia

Which place is located between two large landforms where currently no one is allowed within two miles. It is once part of a massive empire. Would appreciate any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this another one of those stupid online quiz things? Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be Bikini Island within Bikini Atoll, because it is approximately two miles long and noone is allowed to live there yet because of radioactive contamination. The two large landforms would be the continents of Central America and Asia. It once belonged to the Empire of Japan. You can send my share of the prize money to P.O. Box ________ in the state of ___________ in the USA. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted is a map location of Bikini Atoll.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The key is "no one is allowed within two miles". There are countless places "between two large landforms" (whatever that is supposed to mean) which were "once part of a massive empire" (the word "massive" left vague--we talking Mongol Empire or more like the Holy Roman Empire?). But how many places are there where no one (whatsoever, if one takes this literally) is allowed within exactly two miles? Of course, these quizzes usually play with words and should not be taken so literally. In that case the answer could be any of hundreds of possibilities. Pfly (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me an example of a specific place "where currently no one is allowed within two miles" and "between two large landforms" and "It is once part of a massive empire" - all parameters at the same time. That should be easy since you are indicating "hundreds of possibilities."--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody can come up with a better answer, does that mean I win the prize money?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Korean demilitarized zone. About two miles wide; formerly part of both the Chinese and Japanese Empires, and situated between the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What about the part: Soldiers from both sides may patrol inside the DMZ, and Tae Sung Dong and Kijong-dong were the only villages allowed by the armistice committee to remain within the boundaries of the DMZ. Sounds like to me a lot of people are allowed within the 2 mile zone.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even close to the factual liberties the website takes. How anyone at all gets them, I have no idea. It'll probably turn out to be one of the thousands of minefields or something. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than Bikini - which is pushing "between two landforms" a bit - at least one of the Aleutian islands is a former nuclear test site (and thus inaccessible) and some others may be restricted nature reserves. And, of course, all are formerly part of the Russian Empire... Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A little Googling turned up another version of the question at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110826064327AAiX5SZ. The post is only three days old and has too many similarities to be a coincidence but some of the description is different, mainly replacing the empire part with "This landform used to produce a wide variety of products, but has since been abandoned." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish views on working on the Sabbath

Hello everyone. I have read your article Sabbath but I had a few question about it (specifically among American Jews), since parts seem to conflict with what I have observed in real life I have two close friends who are Jewish, one orthodox and the other I forget, but my orthodox friend considers it OK to airsoft and paintball on Saturdays, and the other is willing to do non-synagogue-affiliated volunteering on Saturdays as well as give instrumental and vocal performances, even though neither is needed as part of membership of the groups that run them. As I understand it thus far, doing almost any kind of work and many sorts of play are prohibited unless absolutely necessary on the Sabbath. This is supposedly strictly observed in the Orthodox community and more laxly so in the Reform communities. My question is, are these typical views? Any guesses on the sect of my other friend (I could just ask her but this isn't the first time I've forgotten, I'm a Nazi, I know ;) I would especially appreciate the personal views of a Jewish respondant, if that's not too much to ask. Thanks profusely. 201.73.204.178 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'official' view of most Orthodox movements (eg. the United Synagogue) is that Jews shouldn't work or play sports or anything like that on Shabbat. However, many people who are members of Orthodox synagogues don't necessarily endorse this view: there is a phrase "parking round the corner" to describe families that will drive to their Saturday morning service, against the rules, but park round the corner so that the rabbi doesn't see.
The official view of more progressive movements (eg. Liberal Judaism) is that such activity is perfectly fine, as Shabbat should be a day of recreation and enjoyment.
I hope that makes the situation slightly clearer to you at any rate! ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Tut tut tut. Considering the number of fires ignited and quenched by the spark plugs on even the shortest trip that really is a no no ;-) Shabbat says more about these injunctions. Sorry see you've read that and I'm not a Jew. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Car engines don't have spark plugs! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

... ... but the battery certainly has to work hard to move the Leaf! Dbfirs 07:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I guess it could even be left switched on before the Shabbat. And how much work is it doing if it gains energy back when stopping? I can see them selling quite well for this! Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that excuse wouldn't cut it. One isn't allowed to ride a bike on Shabbat in case it broke (because then one would have to carry it) and I guess the same would apply to a car engine left on overnight. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Scipio Africanus and the mutiny at Sucro, 206 BC

Apparently Scipio got seriously ill near Sucro in 206 BC. There were even rumors of his death which caused much havic. What were the reasons of the mutiny? Is there a list of grievances? Who were the instigators that organized the mutiny? How was the mutiny eventually quenched?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most complete source of information would be this paper, which I cannot access though. Apparently most of the information comes from Polybius -- here is a freely accessible link to his account. It looks like the primary grievance was not having been paid their wages. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Paper in Historia linked suggests that Polybios version was biased, since he had personal connections and sympathy towards Scipio, however that is also the only source we have, all later sources being based on his account. Polybios claims the soldier were debauched and needed money, preferably in the form of plunder. However, Chrissanthos shows that he has no understanding of the conditions of the ordinary soldier at the time and one must look further for an interpretation, for example it was not because of debauchery that the men needed pay. They simply hadn't been paid their wages for years, and supplies was also lacking. On p. 174 Chrissanthos states: "On careful investigation, three causes emerge. The first was complaints over money, both pay and plunder [....] Upon inverstigation it becomes apparent that Scipio, and his father and uncle before him, had not paid them [...] The second major cause was the length of service. Many of the man at Sucro had arrived with Scipio's uncle Gnaeus back in 218, or with his father Publius in 217 [...] The third and maybe most important reason was the lack of supplies at Sucro. It will be demonstrated that the shortages at Sucro first drove the men to steal from the countryside at night and then to mutiny. Scipio's prompt provision of supplies during and after the crisis proves that he realized that fulfilling these needs of the men were vital to his command and the termination of the mutiny." Regarding who and exactly how the mutiny played out you will need to read Polybios in the link Looie496 provided above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Looie496 and Saddhiyama. Much help!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro to Sufism

What book should I read as an intro to Sufism? I want something that might be used as a textbook in a university class on the subject, something with thorough citations, not a New Age coffee table book. :) Thanks! --63.131.6.24 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources listed in the Sufism article on Wikipedia may do the job. Alternatively, here's a course module listing from SOAS, University of London on "Sufism: Texts and History" which has a recommended reading list. They also have a lower level Introduction to Sufism course. Another good course book listing is linked from this University of Cambridge Continuing Education course page (the PDF link titled "preparatory material" has a list of books about Sufism in the modern world). —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had the following recommended to me: Douglas-Klotz, Neil. The Sufi Book of Life: 99 Pathways of the Heart for the Modern Dervish. Penguin (Non-Classics), 2005. Chittick, William C. Sufism: A Short Introduction. Oxford, England: Oneworld, 2000. Baldick, Julian. Mystical Islam: An Introduction to Sufism. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1989. Valiuddin, Mir. The Quranic Sufism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977. Kalibadhi, Abu Bakr al-. The Doctrine of the Sufis. Translated by A.J. Arberry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. My source recommends the first two to start with. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Gaddafi?

Is it true that Gaddafi was killed by an angry mob of rebels sometime during the fall of Tripoli? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to any news service I've seen or heard. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Or any Google search, or his Wikipedia article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then that would mean that my classmate was lying. And Wikipedia is not a source. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So you admit you did no searching of your own before you asked your question here. We ask you to search first, particularly for easily-found information, as this would most certainly have been if it were true. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't apply to the RD, particularly not when the article is referenced. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I recall some online sources briefly reporting it, before quickly realizing that they didn't have any clue what was really going on. The Wikipedia page did briefly mention his death on 21 August, before quickly being removed again [18], [19]. Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember, it was also reported by the rebels that Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam was captured, and then he proceeded to show up at a government-held hotel the next day. I think that a lot of people, even those present in Tripoli, really have no clue what's happening, but our 24 hour news cycle demands that we get constant status updates, no matter how accurate they really are. Buddy431 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 28

Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh

Why were Frankincense and Myrrh considered valuable? Aren't they just a bunch of smelly tree sap (that anyone could easily get if they felt like it for some reason)? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anybody who lived in certain parts of Yemen or Somalia could just go out into the desert and get some. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Being a natural product doesn't make something not valuable. Saffron is very expensive. --Jayron32 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Our articles on Frankincense and Myrrh suggest that both have medicinal properties, for what it is worth. And why is Gold valuable: all you have to do is find a source, then dig it out of the ground... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

76.211.88.37 -- In Hellenistic and Roman times, "aromatic resins" such as Frankincense and Myrrh had extremely important ceremonial, ritual, and medical uses in the Mediterranean civilizations, and there was a regular trade in such substances from "Arabia Felix" (Yemen and southern Arabia) to the Mediterranean. There was an interesting article about the "Rise and Fall of Arabia Felix" (due to the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity reducing demand, among other factors) published in Scientific American in 1969... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that, unlike then, gold is now pretty hard to mine, since we've exhausted all the easy-to-access supplies. Spices, on the other hand, are now much easier to produce, thanks to modern mass production and shipping methods. The result is that the price of spices has gone down, relative to gold, to a dramatic degree. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit cheaper now; this ecclesiastical supplier quotes GBP10.13 (USD16.50) retail for 400 grams - almost a pound (weight). Although the harvesting and sorting seems to have remained unchanged, I suspect that the transport costs and risks are lower than in the 1st century AD. Cities like Petra made immense profits by taxing the overland incense trade[20]; the only alternative to stumping up bags of cash everytime a caravan went through a town, was a hazardous sea voyage. Alansplodge (talk)

It's odd to use the phrasing "considered valuable." Things are valuable if people are willing to pay for them. There's nothing "considered" about it. They were either valuable or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe odd phrasing, but I read the question as asking why people were willing to pay for them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi and Rice

Did Gaddafi dated Condoleeza Rice? --DinoXYZ (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 02:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he had a fan photo album which the State Department has called "creepy"[21] and given their diplomatic relations, I suppose he probably got a handshake out of giving up his nuclear program, but I doubt he got to first base. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a really interesting result of Gaddafi's ideology though. He thinks that black Africans are the superior race and will eventually rule the world. This is one reason why he was interested in a pan-African union recently, and he liked to use black Africans as mercenaries (which is not working out so well for any black people in Libya right now, mercenary or not). And of course, he was in love with the most powerful black woman he had ever met. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's whereabouts

Where is Gaddafi? --DinoXYZ (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is sure. I believe the last positive confirmation of his whereabouts was about a week ago; per 2011_Battle_of_Tripoli#Status_of_Gaddafi_family. --Jayron32 02:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess someone knows, but they're telling neither the media nor the rebels. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Some news sources have been batting around the possibility that he was granted asylum in Algeria [22]. It's likely that he'll turn up in the next few weeks, either captured or killed in Libya, or gloating from some allied nation. Buddy431 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why anyone thinks we would have information about Gaddafi that is not known to the military authorities, or to the world at large via the media. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the questioner is an intelligence agent trying to win the reward. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just heard a noise under my house, maybe he's hiding out in my crawl space. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure it's not a rat, Stu? HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the tunnels from his palaces leads to a under-water dock; he escaped in a submarine to Ireland, where he met up with Lord Lucan and is currently riding around the Cork and Kerry Mountains on Shergar. -- CS Miller (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Crawl space is right, Stu but in this case it is located in one of the million or so tenement buildings which American Islamic spies have found and converted to secret apartments and living space. Check you basements for undocumented crawl space construction and living space. --96.252.229.48 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for relatives in Germany

This has been moved from the help desk with a link to here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My wife left Kindelbruck in 1953 and emigrated to Canada in 1959. She still has 2 sisters living in Kindelbruk. Charlotte Hafermalz and Margaret Lausze. We have attempted a few times to sent letters and birthday/Christmas card, but there is no response to any of our correspondence. Can you clarify for us if they are still alive? Are they still living in Kindelbruck and if so could you supply us with proper addresses Since my wife is totally blind I am writing this letter,

On behalf of my wife Gertrude I as her husband am writing this letter

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.219.110 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved your post to here, which is a better forum to receive an answer. I do not speak German but I have performed a search. The two links below this post are the best I can do. They are telephone book listings. I searched the exact names you provided in Kindelbrück. I found nothing for either entry but I did find some listings for people with the same last names. It's very possible these people are completely unrelated but it's also possible they are relatives. I have no idea. Meanwhile, maybe some other people will be able to provide a more targeted answer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• German "White Pages" listings for Hafermalz.
• German "White Pages" listings for Lausze.

Kindelbrück in Thüringia is a township of some 1 750 inhabitants, so it seems likely that the people listed above are relatives of you wife. There is an email contact for the administration of the district, poststelle@vg-kindelbrueck.de. You or your wife may consider to write to the officials in person. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you need help (I am a native German speaker), please leave a message on my talk page. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also try the same telephone book listing as above with the names Margaret and Charlotte. Both search turn out results (Müller Margarete, Böttcher Charlotte and Grube Charlotte). Maybe they changed their names in the mean time. Quest09 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Zecco can't give a history of stocks' asking prices. Anyplace that will?

See, when I try to buy CYBL for .0001 each, it says .0001 at the moment but the asking is .0002. I'd rather wait until it's .0001, where it CAN'T go any lower, so that every time the price goes up, I would only gain; I would never lose (anything but the commission.)

I tried asking Zecco's customer service for where I could find a graph/chart of historical asking prices for Cyberlux Corporation. They didn't have such a feature. Therefore, I must ask: What other financial reporting services (preferably free) will have a graph/chart of the historical asking prices of any given stock? Also, is it possible for any stock's asking price to reach .0001? (I've never seen asking prices fall below .0002...)

(N.B. As a college student, I need to start small, so I ought to invest in the tiniest stocks first. I'll be investing $300 in CYBL in the next few days, hopefully at $0.0001 per share so that I'll have 3,000,000 shares. If it isn't possible, I guess I'll have to invest 1,500,000 shares at .0002 each.) --70.179.163.168 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but befor handing over any investment money it would be wise to get some investment advice, perhaps from an economics educator or other apropriate person.190.56.112.245 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to buy any stock so that there is no possibility of loss. Stock can become totally worthless, so you can always lose 100% of what you invested. (Imagine a company that goes bankrupt and closes - their investors aren't going to be able to sell their stock, so it will have a $0 value.) I'd recommend reading a beginner's guide to investing and personal finance, because "invest[ing] in the tiniest stocks first" is a pretty bad strategy, even if you don't have much money. I'd recommend I Will Teach You to Be Rich, which at times is overly-basic and annoyingly-written, but is an excellent personal finance book targeted at the 20-35 crowd. Probably a more sensible investment strategy would be to buy equity-heavy index funds (because you are young and can tolerate risk). If you start an account at Vanguard, you can trade their index funds commission-free. (Same with Schwab, but their index funds have higher expenses.) Anyways, that's my two cents. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if a company goes bankrupt, the shares are usually canceled with no reimbursement for common shareholders. I'm not familiar with Cyberlux but any company trading at 1/100th of a cent must be considered at high risk of bankruptcy by the market. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why you don't see ask prices reach 0.0001 is because those who are selling want to make a profit off of their trades, and selling at 0.0001 would very likely not make a profit. You can read about market makers to learn more about who "they" are in this case. Good luck, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

August 29

maximum revenue scheme

What percent(s) of income and what percent of assets would produce the greatest possible revenue without being unfair to the poor or to the rich based on the poverty line as still being fair? --DeeperQA (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you find out, let us all know, because there's thousands of highly-trained economists who can't seem to be able to work it out. --Jayron32 01:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fairness" is a subjective concept, so there is no absolute answer to your question. --Tango (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated an economic unit of analysis (firm? nation? world-system?). Many economic analyses avoid the concepts of "rich" and "poor", some simply substitute economic agents, others discuss class relations. Similarly assets, income and revenue are all constructed terms, with varying meanings or analogues in different analytical systems. A Marxist response would be along the lines of: economics cannot be fair, and any distribution of firm or societal social product between divisions I (production of productive apparatus) and II (production of things for consumption) will result in worse proportionate returns to workers, and eventually a radical reconfiguration of social production under the control of workers. You might need to supply your assumptions and explore your terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addressing your economic unit concern I quickly realized that the government need only set deduction and penalty constraints for such things as hardship or luxury existence for all economic units to determine percent and then use linear programming to find combinations which would fit revenue to expenditure. Thanks. --DeeperQA (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid-Pacific Magazine

I don't think I'm going to get much of an answer but does anybody know where I can find an online copy of the The Mid-Pacific magazine, Volume 37 from 1929. There is a google book version but it's only a snippet view.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Phantom Coach by Amelia Edwards

Is the writer of the short story The Phantom Coach this Amelia Edwards? --DinoXYZ (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The story originally appeared in the Christmas number of Charles Dickens's magazine All the Year Round in 1864. Its first book publication (under the alternative title "The North Mail") was in Edwards's Miss Carew (1865). Deor (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gath. (city).... Goliath

The last sentence in the following caption is incorrect.

"According to the Bible, the king of the city was Achish, in the times of Saul, David, and Solomon. It is not certain whether this refers to two or more kings of this name or not."

The list of kings, as per Biblical timeline references, is the historical account of the three consecutive reigning kings of Israel: first through third. As referenced in Samuel and I Kings.

Therefore, Shouldn't the sentence read something along those lines.